Nat West 3 claims and forced into loan ** WON **

[gizmo111]

WHAT???? You asked for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) which is FULL disclosure, surely. that is an odd one.

 

Because on my original I asked for a specific item relating to charges. I also took a letter in to branch reagarding my fathers account which they never answered fully, another one sent 15th Aug recorded and signed for on 16th - that they say they have lost? Asked me to go to branch tomorrow and fax it from there. I have to say the lady I spoke to was very nice and did her best ot help. I have in general always found the staff to be as helpful and pleasant as they can be, my gripe with them is more of a corporate one as is everyones but I had a meeting with my branch manager in over the money that went out of account and bank charges came into conversation and off the record she agreed they were appalling, and refunded me 4 x £50 on different days as this was her limit in branch. At the time she tried to get me a loan to put all my finances and the joint overdraft in one place and I was refused the best rate she could offer, and was appalled that they would only offer me one on their debt management paln at a higher cost, but she did fight for me to keep my switch card and p[ointed out to the lending centre that I didn't run up debt had tried to stop it and was acting responsible by trying to do something about it and I kept my card.

 

Look forward to seeing what is revealed when I get my notes.

[Guest NATTIE]

I hope you get the info you require because I was sure that the Subject Access Request should have the full works on your account not just charges. Branch staff, on the whole, are genuinely trying to help people and it can be hard when you have your hands tied when you want to do more than the bank allows you to do. That can be frustrating. As I said, I do hope you get the additional notes and that we will see what transpires.

[Its WAR]

I have received exactly the same today. Well spotted about the claimant: Mine says the same. I also have had the same defence and part 18 to my earliest claim 6 weeks ago, that too had the claimant mistake...........I think we will win soon enough. Oh, they sent me a cheque last week too for £1800 (the claim is for £4900. I accepted as part payment.

[gizmo111]

Scanned frst page of defence

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT CLAIM NO. 6QZ48575

BETWEEN: Claimant

-and -

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC Defendant

DEFENCE

1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claimant

does not properly particularise her claim then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account.

f»

3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of the

claim and must identify in respect of each charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

4. In relation to the allegation that the bank charges amount to an unenforceable penalty the Defendant pleads as follows:

4.1 In order for the Claimant to sustain a claim that the charges debited by the Defendant are in the nature of a penalty she will need to plead and prove

[gizmo111]

Went to branch today as instructed by customer services yesterday - they have never heard of the form - but the staff knew exactly why I wanted the notes.very nice lady who has worked there for years wished me luck! Luckily there was a training manager there who took all my details and said she will get notes to me asap and will see if I need to pay the extra £10.

[Guest NATTIE]

Good Luck and I hope those notes will clarify the why question

[gizmo111]

Prelim ready to send tomorrow on an old closed joint acount (which was transferred into my sole name) £1185.04

 

received an offer of £120 - Guess I won't be taking that then!

[gizmo111]

CPR part 18 refusal reply sent 03/09

Letter from cobbetts saying it is not intimitadory received 09/09

A/q sent 10/09 and copy to cobbetts. Was due 17/09

Cheque £100 fee cashed 14/09

[gizmo111]

A/Q copy received from Cobbettts today - nothing in comments etc. The waiting continues

[Louisk]

Snap !

[gizmo111]

Snap !

 

Just printed off LBA for joint account - poor Natwest!

[gizmo111]

Refusal of £120 and response expected by 22nd Sept or court for £1185 letter ready to post Monday

[Logan21]

Once I am done with this claim, I am starting the process again because I have been charged a few times since June lol.

[gizmo111]

Offer received from Cobbetts today of £1300 on a claim of nearly £5K - rejection ready for post today!

[Plutos]

Wow - there seem to be a lot of offers coming in today, although they are all pretty low. All goood stuff

 

Alec

[Logan21]

Anything gizmo?

[gizmo111]

Anything gizmo?

yep just opened leter from court

 

Claim has been stayed because the claimants statement of case discloses inadequate pariculars of claim. Unless by 4.00 pm on 09 Oct the claimant files a further statement that sets out the POC the claim will be struck out.

 

I thought my POC was pretty clear and concise - used template and had a little extra help from site. Schedule was sent to court with AQ. Do I now use the template for the N1 which is more detailed?

[gizmo111]

Particulars of Claim

I have had an account no XXXXXXXX with the defendant since June 1999 which is conducted on their standard terms and conditions. I claim the return of 3314.79 taken by the defendant in the way of charges plus the interest levied on those charges. The banks charges are a disproportionate penalty and thus unenforceable as they are contrary to common law.Further.as a disproportionate penalty they are invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs. 1999. Para.8 and sch.21e. In the event that the charges are not a penalty then they are unreasonable as per the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. The bank have repeat­edly declined to justify these charges.The claimant claims interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% pa from 7/02/00 to 22/7/06 of 1206.73 and interest at the same rate up to the date of

judgment or earlier payment at a dailyrate of 0.729 .Chges 3314.79 Int 1138.29 Total3314.79 S69 Int 1206.73 Tot 4521.52

This is what I put on MCOL - any thoughts

[gizmo111]

This is what I intend to send as an amendment - I presume 1 copy to court and 1 to Cobbetts? Do I need to change anything?

IN THE BRISTOL COUNTY COURT

 

BETWEEN

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CLAIMANT

 

And

 

NAT WEST BANK LTD DEFENDANT

 

 

AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

Claim No 6QZ48575

• The Claimant has an account XXXXXXX with the Defendant which was opened in June 1999.
   
  2. During the period in which the Account has been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.
   
  3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.
   
  4. The Claimant contends that:
   
  a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are not intended to represent or related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Defendant which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.
   
  b) The contractual provision that permits the Defendant to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the common law.
   
  5. Accordingly the Claimant claims:
   
  a) the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £ 2176.50 and interest charged thereon; £1138.29. Total 3314.79
   
   
  b) Court costs;
   
  c) The claimant claims interest under s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from 07/02/00 of £1206.73 and interest at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier at a daily rate of 0.729p.

Amount of Charges & Interest £ 3314.79

Amount of s.69 Interest £ 1206.73

Amount Claimed £ 4521.52

Court Fee £ 120.00

Total Amount £ 4641.52

Amendment to claim issued 22/07/06 via HMCS Website in the Northampton County Court.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed:

 

 

Date:

[gizmo111]

Anyone any thoughts on this

[gizmo111]

I received today that the judge has stayed the claim because the claimants statement of case discloses inadequate particulars of claim. Unless by 4.00 pm on 09 October the claimant files a further statement of case that sets out the full particulars of claim the claim will be struck out.

 

My main thread is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/11431-nat-west-3-claims-2.html Could someone please let me know if I am on the right lines in my reply there. I see from another thread that a N1 had to be resubmitted butthis one is only asking for statement.

[bram stoker]

Hi Hun,

 

You should've PM'd me when you got this. The amendment looks fine, although the interest looks massive, but it does sometimes work like that.

 

Was this the standard wording from the site for the N1 form? To be honest I'm no fan at all of MCOL.

 

It's late, and I'll recheck this in the morning, but it does look ok.

[Michael Browne]

I don't know whether it might be an idea to send a covering letter to the court, explaining, and giving examples from Litigation Concluded, that you are aware that Natwest has setlled dozens of similar claims using virtually identical POC and don't understand why this request has been made.

 

Anybody else got an opinion?

[gizmo111]

Hi Hun,

 

You should've PM'd me when you got this. The amendment looks fine, although the interest looks massive, but it does sometimes work like that.

 

Was this the standard wording from the site for the N1 form? To be honest I'm no fan at all of MCOL.

 

It's late, and I'll recheck this in the morning, but it does look ok.

 

The interest is masive as all charges basically go through a period in 2002 during one of my divorces when they made me roll overdraft into a loan, and I am claiming back that proportion of the interest.

 

This is the standard wording - just amended slighlty to fit judges request.

[gizmo111]

Refusal of £120 and response expected by 22nd Sept or court for £1185 letter ready to post Monday

 

Been a bit slow on this one, as I have another NW claim in and don't want to have them merged, but have received a letter from Stuart Higley offering £500. He makes a point that there was no investigation whatsoever into business bank facilities - this is a normal advantage accouint that was joint then transferred into my name on divorce. He also says the bank is not my fiduciary, and if this is what I am basing my claim on then he suugsets I seek advice - obviously he hasn't read the letters that statye what the claim is based on.

 

So now do I just go ahead and claim or refuse his increased offer and wait a further 14 days? I don't mind either way as i have quite a lot going on at moment.